Re: [racket-users] Can we provide a list of functions?

[Yossu Bonkers]

Wow, what a reply! Thanks.

As I said, I'm quite new to Racket, so haven't got my head around macros 
yet. I have a basic idea, but am not up to writing my own yet.

If you wouldn't mind showing me something, with some explanatory comments 
if you could, it would be great.

Thanks again

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:21:36 PM UTC+1 Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:

> Den tor. 17. jun. 2021 kl. 15.37 skrev Yossu Bonkers :
>
>> I'm quite new to racket, so please pardon me if this is a dumb question.
>>
>> I'm working my way through the first tutorial in Beautiful Racket 
>> , and want to extend it. 
>> He only provides + and * as operators. I added support for others. 
>>
>> The problem is that I need to specify the operators I support in two 
>> places, first where they are used in the handle function (see the 
>> highlighted line)...
>>
>> (define 
>> 
>>  
>> (handle [arg #f])
>>   (cond 
>> 
>>[(number? 
>> 
>>  
>> arg) (push-stack! arg)] 
>> *   [(or 
>> 
>>  
>> (equal? 
>> 
>>  
>> * 
>> 
>>  
>> arg) (equal? 
>> 
>>  
>> + 
>> 
>>  
>> arg))*
>>  (define 
>> 
>>  
>> op-result (arg (pop-stack!) (pop-stack!))) 
>>  (push-stack! op-result)]))
>>
>> ..and then again when they are provided...
>>
>> (provide 
>> 
>>  
>> + 
>> 
>>  
>> * 
>> 
>> )
>>
>> I was wondering if it would be possible to specify the supported 
>> operators in a list...
>>
>> (define my-funs '(f1 f2))
>>
>> ...which could be used in handle, and then provide the functions in the 
>> list.
>>
>
>  
>
>>
>> You can't simple do...
>>
>> (provide my-funs)
>>
>> ...as this is a list of symbols. Equally you can't iterate the list and 
>> call provide on each member, as provide has to be a top-level function.
>>
>> So, is there any way to provide the functions in the list?
>>
>
> I'll give you the big picture. 
>
> As you have observed, `provide` is a compile time construct and can't be 
> used at runtime (where the list my-funs lives).
> Since `provide` lives at compile time, the only solution is to use macros.
>
> Define a macro, say, define-binary-function that can used as:
>
>(define-binary-function *)
>(define-binary-function +)
>
> Given that, one can always define a define-binary-functions, that can be 
> used as:
>
>(define-binary-functions + *)
>
> and expands into multiple instances of define-binary-function.
>
> Now, what must define-binary-function do?
> It must: 
>1) expands to a provide of the function name
>2) add the function name to a list that holds names (symbols) of all 
> binary functions.
>
> You can accomplish 2) by having a global:
>
>   (define all-binary-functions '())
>
> and let define-binary-function expand to both a provide and to
>   
>   (set! all-binary-functions (cons 'id all-binary-functions))
>
> where id is from the use (define-binary-function id).
>
> In the definition of handle, you will then need to make use 
> of all-binary-functions.
>
>
> If you are familiar with macros, I hope the overview will give you a good 
> start.
> If not, the overview skipped a lot of details, so you will need to look at 
> an 
> introduction to macros first. 
>
> If you are interested, I'll be happy to send you a work-in-progress macro 
> tutorial
> I am working. I am always looking for feedback to make it better.
>
> /Jens Axel
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/4a711bbd-18b5-478d-8e42-3c636dfebf38n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [racket-users] Can we provide a list of functions?

[Jens Axel Søgaard]

Den tor. 17. jun. 2021 kl. 15.37 skrev Yossu Bonkers :

> I'm quite new to racket, so please pardon me if this is a dumb question.
>
> I'm working my way through the first tutorial in Beautiful Racket
> , and want to extend it.
> He only provides + and * as operators. I added support for others.
>
> The problem is that I need to specify the operators I support in two
> places, first where they are used in the handle function (see the
> highlighted line)...
>
> (define
> 
> (handle [arg #f])
>   (cond
> 
>[(number?
> 
> arg) (push-stack! arg)]
> *   [(or
> 
> (equal?
> 
> *
> 
> arg) (equal?
> 
> +
> 
> arg))*
>  (define
> 
> op-result (arg (pop-stack!) (pop-stack!)))
>  (push-stack! op-result)]))
>
> ..and then again when they are provided...
>
> (provide
> 
> +
> 
> *
> 
> )
>
> I was wondering if it would be possible to specify the supported operators
> in a list...
>
> (define my-funs '(f1 f2))
>
> ...which could be used in handle, and then provide the functions in the
> list.
>



>
> You can't simple do...
>
> (provide my-funs)
>
> ...as this is a list of symbols. Equally you can't iterate the list and
> call provide on each member, as provide has to be a top-level function.
>
> So, is there any way to provide the functions in the list?
>

I'll give you the big picture.

As you have observed, `provide` is a compile time construct and can't be
used at runtime (where the list my-funs lives).
Since `provide` lives at compile time, the only solution is to use macros.

Define a macro, say, define-binary-function that can used as:

   (define-binary-function *)
   (define-binary-function +)

Given that, one can always define a define-binary-functions, that can be
used as:

   (define-binary-functions + *)

and expands into multiple instances of define-binary-function.

Now, what must define-binary-function do?
It must:
   1) expands to a provide of the function name
   2) add the function name to a list that holds names (symbols) of all
binary functions.

You can accomplish 2) by having a global:

  (define all-binary-functions '())

and let define-binary-function expand to both a provide and to

  (set! all-binary-functions (cons 'id all-binary-functions))

where id is from the use (define-binary-function id).

In the definition of handle, you will then need to make use
of all-binary-functions.


If you are familiar with macros, I hope the overview will give you a good
start.
If not, the overview skipped a lot of details, so you will need to look at
an
introduction to macros first.

If you are interested, I'll be happy to send you a work-in-progress macro
tutorial
I am working. I am always looking for feedback to make it better.

/Jens Axel

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CABefVgycHfj0B_M8ks8V_MWG_idaOcCVHu5ZVTL_v3DjpT77xg%40mail.gmail.com.

[racket-users] Can we provide a list of functions?

[Yossu Bonkers]

I'm quite new to racket, so please pardon me if this is a dumb question.

I'm working my way through the first tutorial in Beautiful Racket 
, and want to extend it. He 
only provides + and * as operators. I added support for others. 

The problem is that I need to specify the operators I support in two 
places, first where they are used in the handle function (see the 
highlighted line)...

(define 

 
(handle [arg #f])
  (cond 

   [(number? 

 
arg) (push-stack! arg)] 
*   [(or 

 
(equal? 

 
* 

 
arg) (equal? 

 
+ 

 
arg))*
 (define 

 
op-result (arg (pop-stack!) (pop-stack!))) 
 (push-stack! op-result)]))

..and then again when they are provided...

(provide 

 
+ 

 
* 

)

I was wondering if it would be possible to specify the supported operators 
in a list...

(define my-funs '(f1 f2))

...which could be used in handle, and then provide the functions in the 
list.

You can't simple do...

(provide my-funs)

...as this is a list of symbols. Equally you can't iterate the list and 
call provide on each member, as provide has to be a top-level function.

So, is there any way to provide the functions in the list?

Thanks

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/b0db39c6-1c57-423f-9386-64ef5c9dc921n%40googlegroups.com.